On 10/12/2012 03:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 11 October 2012 20:30, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
>>>> I have a quietish few days starting on Saturday, will be looking at this
>>>> then. Is it only the Windows aspect that needs reviewing? Are we more or
>>>> less happy with the rest?
>>> I think the Windows issues were the biggest thing, but I suspect there
>>> may be a few other warts as well. It's a lot of code, and it's
>>> modifying pg_dump, which is an absolute guarantee that it's built on a
>>> foundation made out of pure horse manure.
>> That may be so, but enough people dependent upon it that now I'm
>> wondering whether we should be looking to create a new utility
>> altogether, or at least have pg_dump_parallel and pg_dump to avoid any
>> screw ups with people's backups/restores.
> Well, I think pg_dump may well need a full rewrite to be anything like
> sane. But I'm not too keen about forking it as part of adding
> parallel dump. I think we can sanely hack this patch into what's
> there now. It's liable to be a bit hard to verify, but in the long
> run having two copies of the code is going to be a huge maintenance
> headache, so we should avoid that.
>
That's my feeling too.
cheers
andrew